Plato Fedr : The Idea

Socrates, Fedr

Socrates . Dear Fedr, where and from where? [ Σωκράτης : ὦ φίλε Φαῖδρε, ποῖ δὴ καὶ πόθεν;]

Fedr . From Lysias, Socrates, son of Kefal, I go for a walk outside the city wall: after all, I sat with him for a very long time, in the morning. And on the advice of our friend Akumen, I walk along country roads – he assures us that this is not as tiring as on city streets.

Socrates . He truly says, my friend. So, does Lysy already in the city?

Fedr . Yes, at Epicrates, in the house of Morihia near the Temple of the Olympian.

Socrates . What did you do? Lysy, of course, treated you to his writings?

Fedr . You will find out if you have the leisure to walk with me and listen.

Socrates . How, in your opinion, is not the most important thing for me – “above the lack of time”, according to Pindar, to hear what you were doing with Lysias?

Fedr . So let’s go.

Socrates. If only you told!

Fedr . But the fact that you will hear Socrates right now will be just in your part: the composition that we did there was — I don’t know how it was — about love. Lysis wrote about an attempt to seduce one of the handsome men, but not from the side of the one who was in love with him, that’s the whole subtlety: Lysis says that one should please the one who is not in love more than the one who is in love.

Socrates . What a noble man! If he wrote that it is necessary to please the poor more than the rich man, the elderly man, than the young man, and so on – all this concerns me and most of us – what compositions and courtesies these would be for the people! I have such a burning desire to listen to you that I will not leave you alone, even if you continue your walk to Megara itself, and there, according to Herodic’s instructions, when you reach the city wall, you will turn back.

Fyodor. How do you say this, dear Socrates, do you really think that I, so inept, will remember in a worthy manner that he was the most skilled writer now, composed gradually and for a long time? So far to me, even if I wanted it more than to have a pile of gold.

Socrates. Oh, Fedr, I don’t know either Fedra, or the pose was already of myself! But no – neither one nor the other. I am sure that he, listening to the work of Lysius, not only listened to it several times, but many times forced him to repeat what he willingly agreed to. And this was not enough for him: in the end, he took the scroll, began to look at everything that was especially attractive to him, and after sitting at this lesson in the morning, got tired and went for a walk, having confirmed this composition by heart, – I swear by the dog, I’m right, I think so, unless it was too long. And he went out of town to exercise. Having met a man who was obsessed with listening to reading essays, he was glad at the sight of him that he would indulge in enthusiastic fury and invited him to walk together. When this admirer of essays asked him to tell, he began to pretend that he didn’t want to. And he will end up saying that he will retell even by force, even if no one voluntarily listened to him. So you are Fedor, beg him now to proceed with what he will do anyway.

Fedr . True, the best thing for me is to tell how I can. You, it seems to me, will never let me go until I at least somehow tell you.

Socrates . And it seems very true!

Fedr . Then I will do so. But in essence, Socrates, I did not learn this verbatim at all, although the main meaning of almost everything that Lysy says about the difference in position of lovers and lovers, I can convey in order from the very beginning.

Socrates . First, dear, show what is in your left hand under the cloak? I guess that this is the composition with you. If this is so, then consider this: I love you very much, but when Lysy is here, I’m not very inclined for you to exercise on me. Come on, show me!

Fedr . Stop doing that! You deprived me, Socrates, of the hope that I had: to use you for the exercise. But where do you think we should sit down and do some reading?

Socrates . We turn here and go along Ilis, and where we like, we will sit in silence.

Fedr . It can be seen, by the way, I’m barefoot now. And you are always like that. Feet will be easier if we go straight through the shallow water, it is especially nice at this time of the year and at these hours.

Socrates . I am behind you, and you look where we can sit down.

Fedr . You see that plane tree, so tall?

Socrates . And what?

Fedr . There is a shadow and a breeze, but on the grass you can sit down and lie down if you want. Socrates. So I’m following you.

Fedr . Tell me, Socrates, is it not here somewhere, from Ilis, that Boreas, according to legend, abducted Oriph?

Socrates . Yes, according to legend.

Fedr . Is it from here? The river in this place is so glorious, clean, transparent that the girls frolic on the shore here.

Socrates . No, the place down the river is two or three stages, where we have a transition to the sanctuary of Agra: there is also an altar to Borea.

Fedr . I did not pay attention. But tell me, for the sake of Zeus, Socrates, do you believe in the truth of this legend?

Socrates. If I didn’t believe, like the sages, there wouldn’t be anything strange in this – I would then philosophize and say that Borea threw Orifia out of a fit, when she frolic with Farmakea on the coastal rocks; about such a demise of her and the tradition developed that she was abducted by Borei. Or did he abduct her from Arey Hill? After all, there is such a tradition – and that she was abducted there, and not here. However, I, Fedor, believe that such interpretations, although attractive, are a matter of man of special abilities; He will have a lot of difficulties, and good luck – not too much, and for nothing else, but because he will have to restore the original appearance of the hippocentaurs afterwards, then the chimeras will pour over him a whole horde of all gorgons and Pegasus and a myriad crowd various other ridiculous monsters. If anyone, not believing in them, with his homegrown wisdom, he will begin a plausible explanation of each species, he will need a lot of leisure. I do not have at all for this leisure. And the reason here, my friend, is this: I still can not, according to the Delphic Nadsha, know myself. And in my opinion, it’s funny, not knowing this yet, to explore someone else’s. Therefore, having said goodbye to all this and trusting the generally accepted here, I, as I just said, am exploring not this, but myself: if I am a monster, more intricate and more furious than Typhon, these same creatures are more meek and simple and even modest, but by nature involved in some divine destiny? But by the way, my friend, is not this the tree you are leading us to? according to the Delphic nadsha, to know oneself. And in my opinion, it’s funny, not knowing this yet, to explore someone else’s. Therefore, having said goodbye to all this and trusting the generally accepted here, I, as I just said, am exploring not this, but myself: if I am a monster, more intricate and more furious than Typhon, these same creatures are more meek and simple and even modest, but by nature involved in some divine destiny? But by the way, my friend, is not this the tree you are leading us to? according to the Delphic nadsha, to know oneself. And in my opinion, it’s funny, not knowing this yet, to explore someone else’s. Therefore, having said goodbye to all this and trusting the generally accepted here, I, as I just said, am exploring not this, but myself: if I am a monster, more intricate and more furious than Typhon, these same creatures are more meek and simple and even modest, but by nature involved in some divine destiny? But by the way, my friend, is not this the tree you are leading us to? but by nature involved in some divine destiny? But by the way, my friend, is not this the tree you are leading us to? but by nature involved in some divine destiny? But by the way, my friend, is not this the tree you are leading us to?

Fedr . It is the most.

Socrates . I swear Hero, a wonderful corner! This sycamore tree is so broad and tall, and the overgrown, shady willow is magnificent: it is in full bloom, everything is fragrant all around. And what a glorious spring makes its way under the plane tree: the water in it is completely cold, you can try it with your foot. Judging by the statues of the virgins and the sacrificial offerings, here, you see, the sanctuary of some kind of nymphs and Aheloy. Yes, if you want, the breeze here is cool and very pleasant; on the summer, he echoes the cicadas chorus. And the best part is that there is so much grass on the log slope – you can lie down and your head will be very comfortable. Really, you are a great guide, dear Fedr.

Fedr . And you, amazing man, how strange you are! You say it’s like some kind of stranger who needs a guide, not a local resident. From our city you not only do not travel to foreign countries, but, it seems to me, you do not even go beyond the city wall.

Socrates . Forgive me, my good friend, I am inquisitive, and the areas and trees do not want to teach me anything, not like the people in the city. However, you seem to have found a way to make me move. Waving a green branch or some fruit in front of a hungry animal, they lead it along – and so you, holding out scrolls to me, will lead me almost all over Attica and generally anywhere you like. But since we have come here right now, I’ll probably lie down, and you will settle down, how do you think it will be more convenient for you to read, and go on reading.

Fedr. So listen: “You know about my intentions, you have already heard about what I consider useful for you and me, if they come true. I think the fact that I’m not in love with you will not be an obstacle to my request: the lovers repent later in their good attitude when their passion passes, and the lovers will never come to repentance: after all, nothing forces them to relate well – they do it is voluntary, to the best of their ability, just as they make only the best decisions in their domestic affairs. Further, lovers look at how much damage they have suffered in their affairs because of love, and in what they have succeeded; adding here the works performed by them, they believe that they have long sincerely thanked those whom they love. And for unlovers there is no reason, under the pretext of love, to neglect household chores, list your past works or blame someone for your disagreement with relatives. Since so many troubles disappear, nothing prevents them with great willingness to do everything that they expect to please anyone. Further, if it’s worthwhile to value the lovers as if they, according to them, are extremely friendly towards those whom they are in love with, and are ready, both in word and deed, to incur the hostility of outsiders in order to please those whom they love, – so it’s easy to recognize if they are telling the truth. After all, with whom they subsequently fall in love, they will begin to prefer those to the former, and it is clear that, in favor of the new, they will be bad about the former. In general, what is the point of trusting in a similar case to a person who has been comprehended with such misfortune that no one would have taken it away, had he even been very experienced? The lovers themselves agree that they are rather sick, what are in their right mind, and know that they are poorly thought, but not able to control themselves. How can they, when reason returns to them, consider good what they decided in this state? In addition, if you began to choose the best of lovers, you would have to choose from a small number, and if you began to choose the most suitable for you among others, the choice would be great. So there is much more hope e to meet among many those who are worthy of your friendship. If you are afraid of the established custom – as if people, having passed, but began to condemn you, it is natural here that the lovers, believing that their own enthusiasm is shared by other people, will exalt themselves in the stories and proudly let everyone know that their efforts were not in vain; and lovers, possessing themselves,

Further, many inevitably hear and see how lovers accompany those in love with them, making this their constant occupation; therefore, as soon as someone finds them in a conversation with each other, he immediately assumes that their communication is caused by an attraction that has already arisen or is emerging. And nobody is in love with anyone but is trying to blame their communication, in the belief that they need to talk in a friendly or for some pleasure. If you are seized with fear at the thought that friendship is difficult to be constant, because when a disagreement arises under ordinary circumstances, this misfortune applies to both sides; if only you lose what you value most, then a lot of damage will turn out for you; then naturally it would be natural for you to be afraid of lovers. They feel much upset that they believe that everything is done to their detriment. Therefore, they turn away those whom they love from communicating with other people, fearing that the rich will surpass them in means, and the educated in circumvention; they are wary of the influence of anyone with any advantage. By convincing you to dislike such people, they rob you of friends.

If you, but forgetting about yourself, are smarter than them, this will lead to a quarrel. But whoever happened to fall in love, but who, thanks to his virtues, achieved what he needed, will not have anything against people who are sociable, on the contrary, he is hated by people who are not hated: he expects contempt on their part, and he will benefit from sociable people. Therefore, there is much more hope that friendship will arise from their relationship, not hostility.

Further, many lovers are attracted to the body even before they recognize the character and check the other properties, so it is not clear to them whether they want to remain friends even when their attraction ceases. As for the lovers who have experienced this before, being friends with each other, it is unbelievable that their friendship should be reduced from what they were pleased to experience – on the contrary, it will remain a memorable sign and a guarantee of the future.

You should expect that you yourself will become better if you obey me, and not some lover. After all, disregarding the highest good, they approve of everything no matter what is said or done, partly because they are afraid of causing hostility, partly because passion prevents them from understanding.

This is what love is: whoever drinks it is unhappy, it forces them to consider torment even that which does not upset others at all, and who is happy, it forces them to praise something that does not deserve to even be considered pleasure. Therefore, one should rather pity those who fall in love than envy them.

If you obey me, I, communicating with you, first of all I will serve not instant pleasure, but also future benefits. I will not allow myself to overcome love, but I will control myself; for nothing, I won’t treat you with sharp hostility, and even in the case of something important, I’ll only get a little angry; I will excuse inadvertent faults and try to prevent intentional ones; all these are signs of lasting friendship.

If it seems to you that strong friendship cannot arise when there is no love, then you need to pay attention that we would not appreciate either our sons, fathers and mothers and would not make true friends who did not become our friends. due to this kind of attraction, but due to other habits.

Further, if you need to especially please those who need it, then in other cases you should give help not to those who are prosperous, but to those who are in poverty, because after getting rid of the greatest evils, such people will be especially grateful. If so, even for personal expenses, it is worth inviting not friends, but petitioners and those in need of food: they will appreciate it with great joy, will follow you, stand at your door, thank you diligently and wish you all the best. Perhaps one should please not everyone who needs it, but those who can best thank them all, and not just the petitioners, but only those who deserve it. These are not those who would only enjoy the flowering of your youth, but those who will devote you from their blessings when you grow old; not those who, having achieved their will, will brag to people, but those who will bashfully be silent before everyone; not those who will only briefly take care of you, but those who will remain your friends forever; not those who, as soon as their attraction is stopped, will look for an excuse for hostility, but those who discover their virtue just when your flowering blows.

So, remember what was said, think also about the fact that friends adore lovers, believing that there is something bad in their ventures, and none of their loved ones ever reproached that they were plotting something to their detriment. Perhaps you will ask me if I advise you to give in to all the lovers. I think that a lover will not advise you to treat all lovers in this way. c After all, if he holds such a look, he does not deserve even this favor equal for everyone, and you, with all your desire, cannot hide from the others to the same extent. Meanwhile, this should not be any harm, but only benefit for both. So, I believe that what has been said is enough, if you want additions and find gaps, then ask questions. ” Do you think Socrates is this work? Isn’t it all perfectly spoken, especially in the sense of expressions?

Socrates . Wonderful, my friend, I am directly amazed. And you are the reason, Fedr: looking at you, I saw how, while reading, you really enjoyed this composition. Considering that you are more than me, you know a lot about such things, I followed you, and following you, I came to an unholy delight with you, my amazing man.

Fedr . Well, you seem to be joking.

Socrates . Do you think I’m joking? Don’t I speak seriously?

Fedr . Of course not, Socrates. But, in truth, tell me, for the sake of Zeus, the patron of friendship, do you really think that someone else from the Hellenes could say differently, more and more fully about this subject?

Socrates . What? So, you and I need to approve this work also for the fact that its creator expressed his due, and not only for the fact that each expression there is carefully honed, clear and precise? If necessary, you have to give in to please you, although, in my insignificance, I have not noticed all this. I focused only on his eloquence, and the rest, I think, Lysy himself would have recognized as insufficient. In my opinion, Fedr, – unless you mind – he repeats the same thing two, three times, as if he didn’t have the means too much to say a lot about the same thing, or perhaps it was for it doesn’t matter. It seemed to me as a childishness how he flaunts his ability to express the same thing this way or that way – and in both cases is excellent.

Fedr . You say nothing, Socrates. This is precisely what is in his composition, and moreover, all the more: he did not miss anything from the fact that the subject of his speech is worthy of mention. Compared to what he expressed, no one could ever say anything fuller and more dignified.

Socrates . In this, I can no longer agree with you: after all, the ancient wise men and wives who spoke and wrote about this will expose me if I succumb to you to please you.

Fedr . Who are they? And where did you hear anything better?

Socrates . Now I can’t answer right away. But it is clear that I heard from someone, either from the beautiful Sappho, or from the wise Anacreont, or from other writers. Why am I saying that? My chest, a wonderful friend, is full, I feel that I can say no worse than Lysia, but in a different way. And since I couldn’t come up with anything of this on my own — I’m sure of this, recognizing my ignorance — it remains, in my opinion, to conclude that from some other sources I was rumored to be filled like a vessel, but according to I forgot my stupidity, as well as from whom I heard.

Fedr . This, my noble friend, you said perfectly. From whom and how you heard – do not tell me, even if I asked. Do only what you say: promise to say otherwise, it’s better and no less than what is in this scroll, and without making borrowings from there, and I promise you, according to the example of nine archons, to dedicate a golden image in full height to Delphi – not only mine, but also yours.

Socrates . How sweet you are, Fedor, and you are truly golden if you think that I affirm that Lysias was mistaken in everything and that everything can be said differently. This happens, I think, even with the worst writer. For example, at least what this essay is about. Who, saying that it is necessary to yield more to the lover than to the lover, will miss, in your opinion, the praise of the rationality of one and the condemnation of the recklessness of the other? This is inevitable, and can you say otherwise? I think that such things should be allowed and forgiven to the speaker. In such cases it is necessary to praise not the invention, but the presentation; where [the arguments] are not so inevitable and it’s difficult to find them, there, apart from the presentation, the invention should also be praised.

Fedr . I agree with what you are saying, because, it seems to me, it was correctly said by you. So I’ll do it: let you proceed from the fact that you can recognize a lover as sick rather than a lover; if otherwise you say otherwise than Lysias’ is complete and more valuable, then stand your forged statue in Olympia next to the sacred offering of the Kipselids!

Socrates . You, Fedor, took seriously that I attacked your favorite, making fun of you, and thought that I would really try to equal his wisdom and say something else, more diverse?

Fedr . Here, my dear, you fell into the same trap! Speak as you know how, nothing else remains for you, otherwise we will have to, as in comedies, take up the hard work of bickering. Take care and don’t make me repeat your trick: “if I, Socrates, don’t know Socrates, then I forgot myself too” or “he wanted to talk, but he was breaking.” Consider that we won’t leave here before you express what you have, as you put it, in your chest. We are alone here, surrounded by deserts, I am stronger and younger – for all this heeded my words and did not bring matters to violence, speak better of your own free will!

Socrates . But, dear Fedr, is it not funny if I, a simple person, suddenly start randomly competing with a real creator!

Fedr . You know? Stop painting in front of me. Perhaps, I have something in store: should I say this, and you will be forced to speak.

Socrates . So do not say anything!

Fedr . No, I will certainly say, and my word will be an oath. I swear to you – but by whom, however? Which of the gods? Well, do you want this plane tree? Indeed, if you do not give me a speech in front of this very tree, I will never show and will not tell you any and no one’s speech!

Socrates . Oh, worthless! Found a .lead how to get a speech enthusiast to fulfill your requirement!

Fedr . What’s wrong with you? Why are you all dodging?

Socrates . Not anymore, after such an oath of yours. Am I able to refuse such a treat!

Fedr . So get started.

Socrates . Do you know what I will do?

Fedr . What?

Socrates . I will speak with my face covered so that when I look at you, I will not stray from shame and speak my speech as soon as possible.

Fedr . If only you spoke, and there do what you want.

Socrates. So, sweet-voiced Muses – whether you are called like that by the nature of your singing or in honor of the musical tribe of the Ligur – “help me” tell me what this excellent young man is forcing me to make his friend, who previously seemed wise to him, seem to him now so much more! There lived a boy, or rather, a teenager, of extraordinary beauty, and many were in love with him. One of them was crafty: in love no less than anyone else, he assured him that he was not in love at all. And one day, harassing his own, he began to convince him of this very thing – as if he had to give in to a lover sooner than a lover. And he said like this: “In any case, young man, it is necessary to start from the same thing for his proper discussion: you need to know what exactly is being discussed, otherwise solid errors are inevitable. Most people don’t even notice that he does not know the essence of this or that subject: as if they already knew it, they are not made known about it at the beginning of the consideration; in his further course, this naturally affects: they contradict both themselves and each other. May something that we reproach others not happen to us. Since the question is before you and before me, with whom it is better to be friends, with a lover or with a lover, we need to agree on the definition of what love is and what its strength is, and then, bearing this in mind and referring to it, we will considering whether it is beneficial or harmful.

That love is a kind of attraction, possible for everyone. And that the lovers also have an attraction for the handsome, we know that. What, in our opinion, is different between a lover and a lover? It should be noted that in each of us there are two beginnings that govern us and guide us; we follow them wherever they lead; one of them is innate, it is an attraction to pleasures, the other is our opinion on moral good and desire for it. These principles in us sometimes agree, it happens that they are in discord and one thing or another takes over. When the opinion of good is reasonably reflected in behavior and takes precedence by its power, this is called rationality. Attraction, unreasonably aimed at pleasures and having prevailed in us with its power, is called rampant. However, for rampant, there are many names, After all, it can be different and complex: its appearance, which happens to become distinctive, gives its name to its owner, even if it was ugly and would not be worth it !. So, the food addiction, which prevailed over the understanding of the highest good and other drives, will be gluttony, and whoever differs in them receives this very nickname. And if someone is dominated by an addiction to intoxication, and only it leads him, it is clear what nickname he will get. And in the remaining cases the same thing: the name is taken from the corresponding drive, constantly prevailing, – this is obvious. ” it will be gluttony, and whoever differs in it receives just this nickname. And if someone is dominated by an addiction to intoxication, and only it leads him, it is clear what nickname he will get. And in the remaining cases the same thing: the name is taken from the corresponding drive, constantly prevailing, – this is obvious. ” it will be gluttony, and whoever differs in it receives just this nickname. And if someone is dominated by an addiction to intoxication, and only it leads him, it is clear what nickname he will get. And in the remaining cases the same thing: the name is taken from the corresponding drive, constantly prevailing, – this is obvious. “

For the sake of what all this was said, perhaps, clearly; in any case, what has been said is clearer than the untold. After all, an attraction that, contrary to reason, has prevailed over the opinion that prompts us to correct [behavior], and which has come down to enjoying beauty, and besides, has greatly strengthened under the influence of his kindred drives to bodily beauty and subjugation of all human behavior, is an attraction received a nickname from its power, which is why it is called love. But, dear Fedr, do not you, like me, feel that I am experiencing some kind of divine? state?

Fedr . And even very, Socrates: contrary to usual, some stream caught you.

Socrates . So listen to me in silence. In fact, the place is somehow divine, so be surprised if during my speech I, perhaps, will be repeatedly captured by nymphs – even now my speech sounds like praises.

Fedr . You are absolutely right.

Socrates . The reason for this, however, is you. But listen to the rest – otherwise this influx would not leave me; however, it depends on God, and in our speech we need to return to that boy again.

That’s it, my dear! What is subject to our discussion has already been indicated and determined. Without losing sight of this, let’s talk about the rest: what benefit or harm will most likely come from a lover and a lover who gives in to them? A man who obeys attraction, a slave to pleasure, will certainly do his favorite as he pleases him most. He who is sick is pleased with everything that does not oppose him, and that which is stronger than him or he doesn’t care is hateful. The lover does not voluntarily tolerate his lover who is superior to him or equal to him, but always tries to make him weaker and helpless. An ignoramus is weaker than a wise one, a coward is a brave man, incapable of speaking – speechless, a dumbass – witty. Such or even greater shortcomings in the spiritual storehouse of a pet, whether inevitably arising or inherent in him from nature, delight a lover,

The lover is inevitably jealous, and, removing his pet from many other types of communication, moreover useful, thanks to which he could have matured more, he does him great harm, even incomparably greater, if he does not allow him to join what the pet is most of all could become rational; and this is precisely such a divine philosophy, to which the lover does not allow him to come close, fearing that he would not neglect him. He comes up with many other things so that his favorite would not know anything and would not look at anything other than him, and that would be extremely pleasant for him, even if it was extremely harmful for the young man himself. This means that the cares and society of a person engulfed in love can in no way be useful for the young man’s spiritual warehouse.

After that, we need to see what the state of the body will be and care for it, whose master will be a person who will certainly strive for pleasure, not for good, and we will see that he is looking for not a young man of strong build, but a sissy who grew up not on a clear sun, and in a thick shadow, not familiar with men’s labor and dry sweat, but familiar with an exquisite, courageous way of life, resorting to artificial embellishments and outfits for lack of personal beauty and doing everything else that is associated with this. It’s clear, and you shouldn’t talk about it any longer. Noting this is the main thing here, let’s move on to the rest: after all, on a warrior and in other important cases, such a body inspires courage in the enemy, and fears for friends and lovers themselves.

Since this is clear, let’s leave it aside and talk better about the following: what do you think will be the use or harm of communicating with a lover and his care of the [pet]? Here it is clear to everyone, and especially to the lover himself, that most of all he would like his pet to be deprived of the most precious, faithful and divine property: he would prefer that he lose his father, mother, relatives and friends, because he considers them all annoying detractors of this closeness so sweet to him. He who holds a fortune — gold or other property — will be considered unyielding, and even if he gives in, he will think that it will not be easy to keep. Therefore, a lover will inevitably be annoyed if his pet has a fortune, and rejoices if he is losing it. Wanting to use what is sweet for him as long as possible,

There are many other bad sides here, but a certain genius mixed in with most of them a fleeting pleasure. A flatterer, for example, is a terrible monster and a great perniciousness, however, nature added some kind of pleasure to the flattery, very subtle. You can condemn hetero, for it is harmful, and much more in creatures of this kind and occupations, but in everyday life they are very pleasant. A lover, for his beloved, besides being harmful, is also unbearable in everyday communication. According to an old saying, a peer pleases a peer. I think that equality of age leads to equal pleasures and, due to similarities, creates friendship. However, even communication with peers sometimes causes satiety; meanwhile, obsession is recognized as painful for everyone and in everything. As for the dissimilarity, so it is extremely large between a lover and his favorite. When they are together, the eldest but wants to leave the youngest neither day nor night: he is incited by a relentless furious argument, promising all the time to enjoy his sight, hearing, and touch; with every sensation he feels his beloved, so he is ready to serve him diligently with pleasure. And in comfort, what pleasure will a lover bring to a lover, forcing him to spend exactly the same amount of time with him? Is he the one who will go to an extreme degree of disgust, seeing an already elderly face that has faded, like everything else, which is unpleasant to even hear mention of, but just to be constantly forced to touch in practice. And all the time, vigilant supervision over him, he is guarded from everybody in every way, he hears inappropriate, exaggerated praise, but in the same way reproaches, unbearable from sober and drunk,

While someone is in love, he is harmful and annoying, when his love passes, he becomes treacherous. Having promised a lot, having made many oaths and having spent as many requests, he could hardly make his pet endure his society in the hope of future blessings – it was so painful for that. Now he has to pay: instead of falling in love and fury, his masters became mind and prudence, meanwhile, his favorite, not noticing the change, demands from him the same favor, reminds of everything that has been done and said, and talks to him as if that’s all the same person. Out of shame, he decides to say that he has become different and that he knows how to fulfill the oaths and promises made to him when he was under the rule of former recklessness. Now his mind and judgment have returned so that he is not able to become again like what he was before, that is, to become the same, even if he still did the same. That is why the former lover is forced to renounce and flee: the playing shard fell out on the other side, and the lover, making a sharp turn, takes to flight. But the former favorite is compelled, indignant and cursing, to pursue him, not realizing from the very beginning that he should never give in to a lover, who is probably reckless, but it is better to give in to someone who is not in love, but in his right mind. Otherwise, he will have to succumb to an unfaithful, grumpy, envious, nasty, harmful to property, harmful and to the state of the body, and even much more harmful to the education of the soul, the value of which is truly nothing neither people nor gods. All this must be taken into account, my boy, and understand that the friendship of a lover arises not out of benevolence, but as if for the sake of food saturation: like wolves of lambs, boys in love love. So, Fedor, let me no longer keep you occupied with my reasoning – this is me; I will finish my speech.

Fedr . And I thought that this was only her half, and that you would say the same about the unloving one – that you should give in to him more quickly, and point out his good sides. You, Socrates, stopped for some reason.

Socrates . Have you noticed, my dear, that I have already sounded epic verses, not praises, even though I only did what I reproached? If I begin to praise one, the other, what do you think I will do? Do you know that I will probably be inspired by the nymphs with whom you threw me not without intent? I’d better put it all in one word: one, the other, is good for all that is directly opposite to the properties for which we condemned the first. Should I talk about this for a long time? Enough has been said about both of them: let with my tale be what he deserves, and I leave – I will go to the other side of the river, until you forced me to something more.

Fedr . Just not before, Socrates, as the heat subsides. Can’t you see that it is already noon, which is called motionless? We will wait and talk about what has been said, and as it becomes, perhaps cooler, we will go.

Socrates . As part of the speeches, you, Fedr, are a divine and truly wonderful person! I think that out of all the speeches that have appeared during the course of your life, no one has composed them more than you — either you delivered them yourself or forced others to do so in any way; with the exception of the Theban Symmy, you have far surpassed everyone else. And now, it seems, through your fault, I will make a speech!

Fedr . This is not a declaration of warriors. But what kind of speech and why?

Socrates . As soon as I, my friend, gathered to cross the river, my genius gave me the usual sign – with and it always keeps me from what I am going to do: it was as if I heard at once some kind of voice that did not allow me to leave before than I will not atone for my misconduct before the deity. Although I am a soothsayer, I’m rather unimportant, it’s kind of like bad letters only because it’s enough for me. So, I already clearly understand my misconduct – after all, my soul, my friend, is something more real: even when I spoke that speech, something bothered me and I was somehow embarrassed: what if I, in Ivik’s words, are not happy about gods

… I change to the honor of man

Now I feel what my misconduct is.

Fedr . What are you talking about?

Socrates . You brought terrible, Fedr, terrible speech, and you forced me to say.

Fedr . How so?

Socrates . Absurd and in some ways even wicked – and what speech can be even worse?

Fedr . None, if only you are right.

Socrates . But what about? Don’t you consider Eros the son of Aphrodite and some kind of god?

Fedr . Indeed, they say so.

Socrates . But neither Lysy nor you are in that speech that you delivered with my lips, bewitched by you. If Eros is a god or somehow divine – and this, of course, is so – then he is not evil at all, meanwhile, in both speeches that we just had, he is presented like this. By doing so, they both sinned before Eros, in addition to their lack of thought in them so much gloss that they did not affirm anything sound and true, but they arrogantly claimed to be significant, if only to hold some kind of people and become famous among them. Yes, my friend, I need to cleanse myself. For those who commit transgressions against the holy legends, there is one ancient cleansing. Homer did not know him, but Stesichore knew: having lost his sight for reproaching Elena, he was not as reckless as Homer, but he understood the reason and, being involved in the Muses, immediately composed:

It was not true the word is,

You didn’t enter ships

The Trojan didn’t swim in Pergamum, –

and having composed the entire so-called “Penitent Song”, he immediately received his sight. So in this case I’ll be smarter than them: before anything happens to me for reproaching Eros, I will try to sing to him the repentant song with my head uncovered, and not shut out from shame, as before.

Fedr . For me, Socrates, there is nothing nicer than these your words.

Socrates . Of course, you understand, my good Fedr, how shamelessly both of those speeches were made – both mine and the one that you read on the scroll. If any noble person, meek disposition, in love or in the past who loved the same person, had a chance to hear how we claimed that lovers, because of trifles, are penetrated by strong hostility and then they are unkind to their favorites and harm them, is he , in your opinion, would not have thought that he hears the speeches of people brought up somewhere in the middle of the seas and who have never seen the love of a free-born man, and would he have agreed with our blasphemy Eros?

Fedr . Perhaps not, I swear by Zeus, Socrates!

Socrates . And now, ashamed of such a man and fearing Eros himself, I long for the desire to wash away with myself with a clear speech all this sea salt bitterness that filled our ears. I advise Lysia to write as soon as possible that, on the basis of the same motives, one should please the lover more than the unlover.

Fedr . Believe me, it will be so. If you say a laudable word to a lover, I will certainly compel Lysia, in turn, to write an essay about the same thing.

Socrates . I believe you will remain as you are now.

Fedr . So start bolder!

Socrates . And where is my boy whom I addressed with a speech? Let him listen to this, otherwise he will not hurry to give in to someone who does not love him.

Fedr . He is beside you, very close, whenever you want.

Socrates . So, a wonderful young man to notice for himself: the first speech was the speech of Fedor, the son of Pitocles, the Mirrinusian, and what I am going to say will be the speech of Stesichorus, the son of Euphemus, the Gimeryan. It reads as follows:

This word was wrong – if in the presence of a lover one should give in rather to a lover only because the lover falls into a frenzy, and the lover is always prudent. If fury were simply evil, then this would have been said correctly. Meanwhile, the greatest blessings for us arise from fury, however, when it is given to us as a gift of God. The prophetess at Delphi and the priestesses at Dodon, in a state of fury, did a lot of good for Hellas – both for individuals and the whole people, and being in their right mind – little or nothing. And if we began to talk about Sibyl and others who, with the help of the divine gift of divination by many predictions of many directed on the right path, we would have spent a lot of words on what is clear to everyone. But here is what is worth referring to: those of the ancients who set the meanings of words, they didn’t consider frenzy as disgrace or disgrace – otherwise they would not have called “mantle” the most beautiful art by which one can judge the future. Considering it beautiful, when it manifests itself according to a divine definition, they nicknamed it, and our contemporaries, by ignorance having inserted the letter “tau”, call it “mantle”. And a fortune-telling about the future, when people who are completely rational, produce it according to birds and other signs, which, as if on purpose, consist of a sense and knowledge for the human mind, the ancients called “ooyonistics”, and people of modern times briefly call “ ooyonistics ”, with omega for the sake of splendor, So, how much the divination is more perfect and more valuable than bird divination – here the name is better and the thing itself, the same, according to the ancients, the frenzy that people have from God is more beautiful than judiciousness,

The deliverance from disease, from extreme calamities, from the anger of the gods, which had been aggravated from ancient times, was found thanks to the fury that appeared from somewhere in some families and gave prophecies to those who needed it. Fury was permitted in prayers to and worship of the gods, and the person who was overcome by him received cleansing and consecration into the sacraments, becoming inviolable at all times for the evils surrounding them, the liberation from which came to be truly frantic and obsessed.

The third kind of obsession and fury is from the Muses, it embraces a tender and immaculate soul, awakens it, makes you express Bacchic enthusiasm in chants and other forms of creativity and, decorating countless deeds of ancestors, educates descendants. Who, without the fury sent by the Muses, approaches the threshold of creativity in the belief that thanks to art alone he will become a fair poet, is still far from perfect: the works of the sane are eclipsed by the works of the frantic.

Here is how much – and even more – I can give examples of the beautiful action of the frenzy bestowed by the gods. So do not be afraid of him, and do not let us worry or intimidate any speech that says that we should prefer a sensible friend to someone who is seized by an impulse. Let the triumph of victory be those who, moreover, prove that love does not bestow love upon the lover and lover — we must prove, on the contrary, that the gods grant such fury to the greatest happiness. Our experts will not believe such proof, but wise people will. First of all, it is necessary to delve into the true nature of the divine and human soul, having examined its states and actions. The beginning of the proof is as follows.

Every soul is immortal. After all, the ever-moving is immortal. And for that which communicates the movement to another and is set in motion by others, this movement is interrupted, and therefore life is interrupted. Only that which moves itself, since it does not decrease, never ceases to move and serve as a source and beginning of movement for everything else that moves. The beginning has no occurrence. From the beginning, everything that arises arises, and it itself does not arise out of anything. If a beginning arose from something, it would no longer be a beginning. Since it has no occurrence, then, of course, it is indestructible. If the beginning had perished, it could never have arisen from something, and another from it, since everything should arise from the beginning. This means that the beginning of movement is that which moves itself. It can neither perish nor arise otherwise, all of heaven and the whole Earth, having collapsed, would have stopped and there would have been nowhere to come from that, having given them movement, would have led to their new appearance. Once it turned out that everything immortally moved by itself, everyone without hesitation would say the same thing about the essence and concept of the soul. After all, every body moved from without is inanimate, but moved from within, from itself, is animated, because such is the nature of the soul. If this is so and what moves itself, there is nothing but a soul, it follows from this that the soul is unborn and immortal. and moved from within, from himself, animated, because such is the nature of the soul. If this is so and what moves itself, there is nothing but a soul, it follows from this that the soul is unborn and immortal. and moved from within, from himself, animated, because such is the nature of the soul. If this is so and what moves itself, there is nothing but a soul, it follows from this that the soul is unborn and immortal.

About her immortality, this is enough. And about her idea, one must say this: what is it – it in every way requires a divine and lengthy exposition, and what it is like – it lends itself to a human, more compressed one; that’s what we will say.

Let us liken the soul to the combined strength of a winged pair of harnesses and a charioteer. For the gods, horses and charioteers are all noble and descend from the noble, while for the rest they are of mixed origin. Firstly, it is our lord who rules the team, and then his horses are one — beautiful, noble and born of the same horses, and the other horse — its opposite, and his ancestors — are different. It is inevitable that to rule us is a difficult and pesky business.

Let us try to say how the name of the mortal and immortal creature came about. Every soul knows all the inanimate, but it spreads throughout the sky, taking sometimes different images. Being perfect and winged, it soars above and rules in peace, if it loses its wings, it rushes until it comes across something solid, then it takes over there, having received an earthly body, which due to its strength seems to move by itself ; and what is called a living being – all together, that is, the conjugation of soul and body, has received the nickname of a mortal.

But the immortal cannot be judged by this word alone. Without seeing and mentally but comprehending God sufficiently, we draw for ourselves a certain immortal being, having a soul, having a body, and they are inseparable for eternal times. However, here, as God willing, so be it and so be it considered.

We will touch upon the reasons for the loss of wings, why they disappear from the soul. The reason here, apparently, is this: the wing is naturally characterized by the ability to lift the heavy in height, where the clan of the gods lives. And of all that is connected with the body, the soul is most part of the divine — the divine is beautiful, wise, valiant, and so on; this feeds and nourishes the wings of the soul, and from its opposite – from the ugly, bad – sleep withers and dies.

The great leader in the sky, Zeus, is the first to ride the winged chariot, ordering everything and taking care of everything. It is followed by an army of gods and geniuses, built in eleven squads; Hestia alone does not leave the house of the gods, and of the rest, all the main gods, who are among the twelve, are each led by the order entrusted to him.

Within heaven there are many blissful spectacles and the ways in which the happy race of the gods moves; each of them does his own thing, and [they] are always followed by one who wants and can, because envy is alien to the host of gods.

Going to a festive feast, they rise to the top but to the edge of the heavenly place here, and already there their chariots, which do not lose their balance and are well controlled, easily make their way; but the oval move with difficulty, because the horse involved in evil, with all its gravity, pulls to the ground and depresses his charioteer, if he did not grow it well. From this, the soul has to suffer and exert extreme strain.

Souls called immortal, when they reach the summit, go outside and stop on the ridge of heaven; they stand, the vault of heaven carries them in a circular motion, and they behold those that are beyond heaven.

None of the local poets praised the overseas region, but it will never sing but dignity. It’s what it is (after all, you must finally dare to tell the truth, especially when you are talking about the truth): this area is occupied by a colorless, without outline, intangible essence, truly existing, visible only to the helmsman – the mind; the true kind of knowledge is directed at her.

The thought of God is nourished by the mind and pure knowledge, as is the thought of every soul that seeks to perceive proper, having seen [genuine] being, at least for a short time, appreciates it, feeds on the contemplation of truth and bliss, until the heavenly vault transfers it all around again same place. In this circuit, she contemplates justice itself, contemplates rationality, contemplates knowledge – not that knowledge which is inherent in occurrence and which is otherwise located in another, which we now call existing, but genuine knowledge contained in genuine being. After enjoying the contemplation of all that is genuine being, the soul again descends into the inner region of heaven and comes home. Upon her return, the charioteer puts horses to the manger, sets them up with ragweed and, in addition, watered with nectar.

This is the life of the gods. As for the rest of the souls, for the one who best followed God and was likened to him, the charioteer’s head rises to a non-heavenly region and rushes in a circular motion through the vault of heaven; but horses do not give her rest, and she hardly contemplates being. Another soul rises and falls — the horses tear so hard that she sees one and the other does not. Following them, the rest of the souls eagerly strive upward, but they cannot do it, and they rush about in circles in the depths, trample each other, push forward, trying to get ahead of one another. And now there is confusion, a struggle, they are thrown into sweat from tension. We have a chariot to cope with, many are crippled, many often break their wings. Despite extreme efforts, all of them cannot achieve the contemplation of [genuine] being, and, having departed, they are content with imaginary food.

But for what are they trying so hard to see the field of truth, to see where it is? Indeed, just there, in the meadows, the pasture is for the better side of the soul, and the nature of the wing raising the soul feeds on this. The law of Adrastea is as follows: a soul that has become a companion of God and has seen at least a particle of truth will be safe until the next circuit, and if it is able to do this always, it will always be unharmed. When she will not be able to accompany and see, but, comprehended by some accident, she will be oblivious and evil and heavy, and heavy, will lose her wings and fall to the ground, then there is a law that at the first birth she will infuse into no animal. The soul that has seen most of all falls into the fruit of a future admirer of wisdom and beauty or a person devoted to Muses and love; the second after her – into the fruit of the king, observing the laws, in a man of warlike or able to control; the third – into the fruit of a statesman, master, earner; the fourth – into the fetus of a person who is diligently engaged in exercise or healing of the body; the fifth in order will lead the life of a soothsayer or a person involved in the sacraments; the sixth will pester in poetry or any other field of imitation; seventh — to be a craftsman or a farmer; the eighth will be a sophist or demagogue; the ninth is a tyrant. In all these callings, the one who lives, observing justice, will receive the best share, and whoever violates it will receive the worst. the sixth will pester in poetry or any other field of imitation; seventh — to be a craftsman or a farmer; the eighth will be a sophist or demagogue; the ninth is a tyrant. In all these callings, the one who lives, observing justice, will receive the best share, and whoever violates it will receive the worst. the sixth will pester in poetry or any other field of imitation; seventh — to be a craftsman or a farmer; the eighth will be a sophist or demagogue; the ninth is a tyrant. In all these callings, the one who lives, observing justice, will receive the best share, and whoever violates it will receive the worst.

But no soul returns to where it came from for ten thousand years – after all, it does not inspire earlier than that, with the exception of the soul of a person who sincerely loved wisdom or combined love for her with falling in love with young men: these souls are inspired for three thousand years cycle, if three times in a row they choose for themselves such a way of life, and for three thousand years depart. The rest, at the end of their first life, are put on trial, and after the verdict of the court, some are serving their sentence, descending into the underground dungeons, while the other, whom Dicke eased from the load and lifted to a certain area of ​​the sky, lead a life according to the one they lived in human form. For the thousandth year, both of them come to get yourself a new destiny and choose a second life for yourself – who wants what. Here the human soul can receive the life of an animal, and from that animal that was once a man, the soul can again dwell in man; but a soul that has never seen the truth will not accept such an image, for a person must comprehend [it] in accordance with the idea emanating from many sensory perceptions, but brought together by reason. And this is a remembrance of the fact that not when our soul saw it, when it accompanied God, looked down upon what we now call being, and rose to true being. Therefore, in fairness only inspire the philosopher to inspire: he always, as far as his strength, his memory is turned to what the god is divine. Only a person who correctly uses such memories, always ordained to perfect sacraments, becomes truly perfect. And since how he stands outside of human fuss and turns to the divine, the majority, of course, will exhort him,

This is what our whole discussion of the fourth form of fury came to: when someone looks at the local beauty, recalling the true beauty with the atom, he inspires himself, and inspiring himself, he strives to fly up; but, having not yet gained strength, he looks like a chick up, neglecting the fact that below – this is the reason for his frantic state. Of all kinds of frenzy, this one is the best by its very origin, both for those who possess it and for those who share it with it. A lover of the beautiful involved in such frenzy is called a lover. After all, as already mentioned, every human soul, by its nature, was a contemplator of being, otherwise it would not have settled in this living creature.

Recalling what is there, on the basis of what is here, is not easy for any soul: they only then contemplated for a short time what was there; others, having fallen here, turned under false influence to untruth and, for their misfortune, forgot everything sacred that they had seen before. There are few souls who have a strong enough memory. Every time they see something similar to what was there, they are amazed and no longer possess themselves, and what kind of condition they are, they don’t know, because they don’t understand it enough. In these similarities there is no reflection of justice, temperance and everything else that is valuable to the soul, but, approaching these images, some, albeit very few, nevertheless manage, although with difficulty, to discern with the help of our imperfect organs, to to which genus is that depicted.

Radiant beauty could be seen when we, together with the happy host, saw a blissful spectacle, some following Zeus, and others following someone else from the gods, and partaking of the sacraments, which can rightfully be called the most blessed with and which we committed, while themselves still immaculate and not experienced the evil that awaited us subsequently. Admitted to the visions blameless, simple, unshakable and happy, we contemplated them in a pure light, clean ourselves and not yet marked, like a tombstone, with the shell that we now call the body and which we cannot lose, like a snail – our house

Thanks to memory, there is a longing for what was then, which is why we have now spoken about this in detail. As we said, beauty shone among all that was there; when we came here, we began to perceive its radiance most clearly through the most distinct of the senses of our body – vision, because it is the sharpest of them. But understanding is inaccessible to sight, otherwise understanding would have aroused extraordinary love if some distinctive image of it were available to vision; in the same way, everything else that deserves love. Only one beauty has fallen on to be the most visible and attractive. A person who has been ordained to sacraments for a long time or spoiled does not strive too much from here to beauty in itself: he sees here that bears the same name with her, so that when he looks at it he does not feel reverence, but, devoted to pleasure, trying, like a four-legged animal, to cover and impregnate; he is not afraid of impudent conversion and is not ashamed to chase unnatural pleasure. Meanwhile, a person who has just been ordained to the sacraments, then contemplated a lot of everything that was there, at the sight of a divine person that reproduces [that] beauty or a certain idea of ​​the body well, at first experiences awe, finds some fear on him, sort of like with him and then; then he looks at him reverently, like a god, and, if he were not afraid to be considered completely fierce, he would begin to make sacrifices to his beloved, like an idol or a god. And once you look at him, he immediately changes, he is in a fever, he is thrown into sweat and in unusual heat. he is not afraid of impudent conversion and is not ashamed to chase unnatural pleasure. Meanwhile, a person who has just been ordained to the sacraments, then contemplated a lot of everything that was there, at the sight of a divine person that reproduces [that] beauty or a certain idea of ​​the body well, at first experiences awe, finds some fear on him, sort of like with him and then; then he looks at him reverently, like a god, and, if he were not afraid to be considered completely fierce, he would begin to make sacrifices to his beloved, like an idol or a god. And once you look at him, he immediately changes, he is in a fever, he is thrown into sweat and in unusual heat. he is not afraid of impudent conversion and is not ashamed to chase unnatural pleasure. Meanwhile, a person who has just been consecrated to the sacraments, then contemplated a lot of everything that was there, at the sight of a divine face that reproduces [that] beauty or a certain idea of ​​the body well, at first experiences awe, it finds some kind of fear, it seems with him and then; then he looks at him reverently, like a god, and, if he were not afraid to be considered completely fierce, he would begin to make sacrifices to his beloved, like an idol or a god. And once you look at him, he immediately changes, he is in a fever, he is thrown into sweat and in unusual heat. reproducing well [that] beauty or a certain idea of ​​the body, at first experiences awe, some fear finds on it, it seems to be with him then; then he looks at him reverently, like a god, and, if he were not afraid to be considered completely fierce, he would begin to make sacrifices to his beloved, like an idol or a god. And once you look at him, he immediately changes, he is in a fever, he is thrown into sweat and in unusual heat. reproducing well [that] beauty or a certain idea of ​​the body, at first experiences awe, some fear finds on it, it seems to be with him then; then he looks at him reverently, like a god, and, if he were not afraid to be considered completely fierce, he would begin to make sacrifices to his beloved, like an idol or a god. And once you look at him, he immediately changes, he is in a fever, he is thrown into sweat and in unusual heat.

Having perceived the outflow of beauty with his eyes, he warms up, and this strengthens the nature of the wing: everything that hardened by dryness and prevented growth softens around the sprout from heat; due to the influx of food, the feather shaft swells, and they begin to grow rapidly from the root throughout the soul – after all, it was all originally feathered. While this happens, the whole soul boils and breaks out. When teeth erupt, itching and irritation in the gums happen – the soul experiences exactly the same condition when the wings grow: it boils and at the same time it experiences irritation and itching, giving rise to wings.

Looking at the beauty of a young man, she accepts particles that are attracted and flowing from there – it is not without reason that this is called attraction: by absorbing them, she warms up, gets rid of flour and rejoices. When it is far from it, it dries: the openings of the aisles through which the feathers make their way, dry out, close, and the sprouts of the feathers are locked up. Locked inside with attraction, they beat like a pulse, rub and prick, looking for a way out – each sprout is separate for itself – so that the soul, all punctured from the inside, is tormented and tormented, but still, keeping the memory of the beautiful, it rejoices.

The strangeness of such a mixture tormented her, in her perplexity she rages, and from frenzy she can neither sleep at night nor day in the same place, In anguish she runs to where she thinks to see the owner of beauty. At the sight of his attraction spills over her, and what was previously locked reveals: for the soul it is a respite when injections and torments cease, at that time she tastes the sweetest pleasure. Of her own free will, she will never refuse him, her handsome is dearest to her; here they forget about mothers, and about brothers, and about all friends, and the loss – due to negligence – of her condition is also nothing. Despising all the customs and decencies that she had flown before, she was ready to slavishly serve her desired and wallow anywhere,

The condition I am talking about, my beautiful boy, people call Eros, and the gods – you will probably smile at the novelty of the nickname: I think this is one of the homerides who gives two verses about Eros from the rejected songs, and one of them is very impudent and not too folding; they sing them like this:

Mortals all called him Winged Eros, and the
Gods called Pteroth, because he makes his wings grow.

You can believe it, you can not believe it. Be that as it may, the reason for this state of lovers is precisely this.

If Eros is captured by any of Zeus’s companions, he is able to bear the heavier burden of this namesake wing. The servants of Ares, who completed the circuit with him, are prone to murder if they are defeated by Eros and they suddenly decide that they are offended by something with whom they are in love; they are ready to sacrifice themselves and their pet. The situation is the same with every god: in the host of whoever was, he respects him and imitates him as much as he does in his life, has not yet been spoiled and still lives here in his first birth, and in how he behaves and communicates with his beloved and with other people.

Each of the handsome men chooses a lover to his liking and, as if this is Eros, makes him an idol for himself and adorns him, as if for sacred actions. Zeus’s companions seek Zeus’s soul in their beloved: they see if he is inclined to be a philosopher and leader by nature, and when they find one, they fall in love and do everything to make him like that. If before they did not do this, now they take it, collect information from wherever they can and learn for themselves. They strive to track down and find in themselves the nature of their god and achieve success, since they are forced to look closely at this god. Becoming touched by him with the help of memory, they in a frenzy perceive from him customs and mores, as far as a person can be involved in God. Considering that they owe all of this to the one in love, they value him even more; scooping Zeus like Bacchantes and pouring the beloved into the soul of their beloved, they make him look as much as possible like their god. Those who followed the Hero are looking for a young man of royal qualities and, having found one, behave with him in exactly the same way.

The companions of Apollo and any of the gods, following in the footsteps of their god, look for a young man with the same natural inclinations as they themselves, and, finding him, convince him to imitate their god, as they do. Accustoming the pet to harmony and order, they, as far as anyone can afford it, lead him to classes and to the idea of ​​his god. They do not show either envy or low hostility to their favorite, but they do their best to make him look like themselves and the god they worship. If true lovers do as I say, what they strive diligently for, then their zeal and dedication in the sacraments will be wonderful and beneficial for the one whom his frenzied friend of love took as his friend. The captivity of the chosen one is as follows.

At the beginning of this speech, we divided each soul into three types: we likened two parts of it to horses in appearance, and the third to the charioteer. Let it be so now. Of the horses, we say, one is good, and the other is not. And why one is good and the other is bad, we did not talk, and this should be said now. So, one of them has excellent articles, slender in appearance, his neck is high, his snoring with a hump, his suit is white, he is black-skinned, he loves honor, but he is prudent and conscientious; he is a friend of true opinion, he does not have to be chased by a scourge, he can be guided only by command and word. And the other – hunchbacked, fat, badly built, his neck is powerful, but short, he is snub-nosed, of black color, and his eyes are bright, full-blooded, a friend of arrogance and boast, from the cosmos around his ears he is deaf and barely obeys the scourge and strekals.

When something worthy of love appears in front of the gaze of the charioteer, a feeling grieves his whole soul and is tormented by itching and stinging excitement, that horse that obeys the charioteer, overcome by his usual bashfulness, restrains his running so as not to run into his beloved. And the charioteer can no longer turn the horse either with a strike or a scourge: he is racing with all his might. With him the torment and his companion in the team, and the charioteer, he forces them to proceed with the pet with hints of the seduction of love joys. Both of them at first resist, indignant, because they are forced into terrible and lawless deeds. In the end, since there is no limit to trouble, they go where he pulls them, give in and agree to fulfill his orders.

Here they are already close to the beloved and see his sparkling gaze. When looking at him, the memory of the charioteer rushes to the nature of beauty and sees it again, raised together with prudence on a clean and sacred throne, and when he sees it, he is afraid, out of reverential shame, falls backward and thereby inevitably pulls the reins so hard that both horses fall back – one willingly, since he does not oppose, but the other, arrogant, is completely against his will. Leaning back, one horse is sweating with shame and shock in the soul, and the other, the pain from the reins and the fall subsides, barely catching his breath, begins to scold in anger, blaspheme the charioteer and his teammate for being out of cowardice and due to lack of courage, they left the system despite the agreement. And again, he forces them to go against their will and hardly concedes their requests to postpone it until another time.

With the due date, he reminds them of this, and they pretend to have forgotten. He uses force, laughs, drags, forcing to proceed to the pet with the same speeches. As soon as they get closer to him, he bends, stretches his tail and, having bit a bit, bitten shamelessly forward.

The charioteer, even more experiencing the previous state, leans back, as if from a running barrier, pulls the bridle between the teeth of the brazen horse with all his strength, wounds his spiteful tongue and jaws in the blood, bending his lower legs and hips to the ground and causing him pain. After a bad horse often experiences the same thing and casts off arrogance, he humbly follows the intentions of his pursuit and dies of fear when he sees a handsome man. Then it turns out that the soul of a lover follows the pet with shame and fear. Anyone who does not pretend to be in love, but truly is worried, reveres him in every possible way as God-like. And the young man himself, by his nature, is a friend of the admirer. If earlier his school friends or someone else condemned him, saying that it was shameful to get close to a lover, and therefore he repelled a lover, then over time, young age and inevitability will lead him to this communication. After all, there is no such definition of fate, so that the bad evil would be a friend, and good good – not be; When a young man admits a lover to him, enters into conversation and fellowship with him, closely sees his favor, he is amazed: he notices that the friendship of all his other friends and relatives taken together means nothing in comparison with his inspired friend . He gradually draws closer to the lover, coming in contact with him in gymnasiums and in other gatherings, and then the stream of that expiration, which Zeus, in love with Ganymede, called attraction, profusely pouring out on the lover, partly penetrates him, and partly, when he is already full, flows out. Like a breath or sound, reflected by a smooth and hard surface, they rush back to where they came from, in this way, the stream of beauty again returns to the beauty through the eyes, that is, the way by which it is typical for him to penetrate the soul, now already winged; he irrigates the passages of the wings, causes their growth and fills the soul of the beloved with love.

He loves, but does not know what exactly. He does not understand his condition and does not know how to express it; he could not find its cause, like having contracted an eye disease from another — he hid from him that he sees himself in love, as if in a mirror; when he here, the beloved, like himself, the pain subsides, when he is not there, the beloved yearns for the lover in the same way as the one for him: for the young man it is just a semblance, a reflection of love, he calls it, and considers, not love, but friendship. Like a lover, he also has a desire – only a weaker one – to see, touch, kiss, lie together, and soon he naturally does so. When they lie together, the unbridled horse of the lover finds what to say to the charioteer, and asks for at least a little pleasure as a reward for many torments. But the horse doesn’t find a favorite, what to say; in excitement and embarrassment, he embraces that lover, kisses, caresses him as the most faithful friend, and when they lie down together, he is not able to refuse the lover in his share of pleasure if he asks for it. But the teammate, together with the charioteer, again resist this, ashamed and convincing.

If the best spiritual inclinations of a person, his tendency to order in life and philosophy will prevail, then the lover and his beloved blissfully lead the life here in one mind, wielding themselves and not violating modesty, enslaving what causes the corruption of the soul and giving freedom that which leads to virtue. After death, having become winged and light, they triumph in one of the three truly Olympic competitions, and neither human common sense nor divine fury can give a greater good to a person.

If they lead a rougher life, alien to philosophy and full of ambition, then perhaps their unrestrained horses, taking their souls by surprise – at the moment of intoxication or just carelessness – will bring them together and make them choose and accomplish what is extolled by the majority as the most blessed destiny. And having done this, they will continue to resort to this, although infrequently, because this is not consistent with their general spiritual structure. They are also friendly, although not as much as the first ones, and not only parting, not only while in love, but also when it passes, believing that, since they gave each other the greatest oaths of allegiance, they can no longer be broken and go to a quarrel. At the end of their life, although wingless, they leave the body, already full of desire to inspire themselves, so that they also receive a considerable reward for their love of fury. There’s no such law

That’s how many divine gifts my friend will give you, the friendship of a lover. And intimacy with a person who is not in love with you, diluted by the common sense of mortals, guided by the prudence of mortals, engenders in the soul of a sweetheart a low-minded way of thinking praised by the majority as a virtue, will only lead to the fact that the soul will wander meaninglessly for nine thousand years on the ground and underground .

Here, dear Eros, a gift to you and reparation: the most beautiful and best penitential song – to the best of our ability. It was because of Fedra that I had to sing it, and even in particularly poetic expressions. If you forgive me the previous speech and you enjoy it, be supportive and merciful: do not take away from me and do not destroy in your anger the art of love that you have bestowed. Let me become more precious to beauties than until now. If in the previous speech Fedor and I said something that was not in tune with you, blame Lysia for this: he is the father of that speech. Turn him away from such speeches, turn him to philosophy, as his brother Polemarch had already addressed her, so that this admirer of Lysia would not hesitate more than now, but would devote his whole life to Eros and philosophical speeches!

Fedr . I pray with you, Socrates: since it’s better for us, let it come true! And I’ve been surprised for a long time at your speech – how beautiful you went at you than the first. I even fear that Lysy would not seem petty to me if he wanted to oppose her with some other speech. And indeed, you are an amazing person, not long ago one of our statesmen scolded Lysia and reproached, and cursing, always called him the writer of speeches. May be. The fox of pride will refrain from writing now.

Socrates . Oh young man, you say funny things! You are completely mistaken about your friend if you think he is so shy. Do you think the one who scolded him really censured him?

Fedr . So it seemed, Socrates. You yourself know that people who are influential and revered in the city are embarrassed to write speeches and leave compositions after themselves, fearing that rumors would not later call them sophists.

Socrates . You forgot, Fedor, that the sweet bend got its name from the big bend on the Nile. In addition to this bend, you don’t notice the fact that just statesmen, who imagine a lot about themselves, especially like to write speeches and leave compositions after themselves. Having written a speech, they value those who approve of it so much that they first mention who approved it and in what case.

Fedr . How do you say do not understand?

Socrates . Don’t you know that at the beginning of each state decree it is indicated first of all who approved it?

Fedr . I.e?

Socrates . “Decided,” as it is said, “advice,” or “people,” or both of them; “So-and-so made a proposal” – here the writer of the speech with great importance and praise calls his own person, then he goes on to expose, exposing to those who approved him, his wisdom, and sometimes his composition turns out to be extremely lengthy. Is this, in your opinion, not recorded speech?

Fedr . Oh sure.

Socrates. And now, if his proposal is accepted, the creator of speech leaves the theater, rejoicing. If it is rejected, if he fails to compose speeches, and his speech is not worthy of recording, then he and his friends grieve.

Fedr . Of course.

Socrates . Obviously, they do not despise this occupation, but, on the contrary, admire it.

Fedr . And very much so.

Socrates . And if such a capable orator or king appears that, possessing the power of Lycurgus, Solon, or Darius, he will immortalize himself in the state and as a compiler of speeches? Would he not consider himself God-like during his lifetime? And will not the offspring consider the same, despite his writings?

Fedr . Of course.

Socrates . So, in your opinion, any of such people, no matter how displeasing to him Lysis, would begin to condemn him for what he writes?

Fedr . It follows from your words that this is unbelievable, otherwise it would have turned out that he condemns what he himself aspires to.

Socrates . This means that it is clear to everyone that writing speeches is not in itself a shame.

Fedr . And then what is shameful?

Socrates . In my opinion, it is shameful to speak and write not as it should, but ugly and malicious.

Fedr . It is clear.

Socrates . What is the way to write well, or, conversely, bad? Do we, Fedor, need to ask Lysia or anyone else who has ever written or will write about it – it doesn’t matter if he writes anything about public affairs or private, whether in poetry or without poetry, like any of us?

Fedr . You ask, do you? But why, in truth, live, if not for pleasures of this kind? After all, it’s not for the pleasures that must be preceded by suffering, – otherwise you won’t feel them, as it happens with almost all bodily pleasures (that’s why they are justly called slavish pleasures).

Socrates . True, we do have leisure. In addition, the cicadas above our heads sing, talk among themselves, as is usually the case in the heat, and, in my opinion, they are looking at us. If they see that we, like the majority, do not conduct conversations at noon, and because of laziness we doze off their thoughts, lulled by them, they will justly ridicule us, thinking that it was some slaves who came to their refuge and, like sheep at noon sleeping at the spring. If they see that we, talking, do not succumb to their charm and swim past them like past sirens, they, in admiration, please, give us the honorable gift that they received from the gods for distribution to people.

Fedr . What did they get? I, apparently, did not hear about it.

Socrates. It is not good for a man who loves Mus to not even hear about it! According to legend, cicadas were not when people were, even before the birth of the Muses. And when Muses were born and singing appeared, some of the people of that time were so delighted with this pleasure that they forgot about food and drink among the songs and died in oblivion. After them, a breed of cicadas descended: they received such a gift from the Muses that, having been born, they do not need food, but immediately, without food and drink, they begin to sing until they die, and then they go to the Muses to notify them which of earthly people which of them worships. Having informed Terpsichore of those who honored her in round dances, they gain her favor with them; Erato – to those who honored her in love songs, and the same with the rest of the Muses, corresponding to the kind of veneration of each of them. The oldest of the Muses – Kalliope – and Urania following her – they inform people who have dedicated their lives to philosophy and who worship what these Muses know. Indeed, among the Muses, these two are most involved in heaven and teachings, divine and human, because their voice is most beautiful. So, for many reasons, you and I need to talk, and not sleep half a day.

Fedr . Of course, we will talk.

Socrates . Therefore, we have to consider in what we were just going to do, on what it depends – to speak and write good or bad.

Fedr . Obviously.

Socrates . For the speech to come out good, beautiful, shouldn’t the speaker’s mind comprehend the truth of what he’s about to speak?

Fedr . About this, dear Socrates, I heard this way: for someone who intends to become a speaker, there is no need to understand what is really fair, it is enough to know what seems fair to the majority who will be judged. The same applies to what is really good and beautiful – just know what seems to be such. That is how one can convince, not with the help of truth.

Socrates . “Thought is not contemptible,” Fedr, since smart people say so, but you need to consider whether it makes sense. Therefore, you cannot ignore what you just said.

Fedr . You’re right.

Socrates . Consider this as follows.

Fedr . Which one?

Socrates . For example, I would convince you to get a horse in order to fight the enemy, and you and I would not know what a horse is, and I would only know about you that Fedr considers a horse a tame animal with big ears …

Fedr . That would be funny, Socrates.

Socrates . Not yet, but it would be like if I began to convince you seriously by writing a commendable word to a donkey, calling him a horse, that you should definitely get this cattle not only at home, but also on a campaign, as it will be useful in battle for transportation carry on and much more from the other.

Fedr . That would be very funny!

Socrates . Isn’t it better that it’s funny and cute than that which is scary and hostile?

Fedr . It is obvious.

Socrates . So, when a speaker who does not know what is good and what is evil, will appear before the same ignorant citizens with the aim of convincing them, moreover, he will not praise the donkey’s shadow, passing him off as a horse, but evil, passing off him as good, and , taking into account the opinions of the crowd, will convince her to do something bad instead of good, what do you think will be the fruits of the subsequent sowing of his eloquence?

Fedr . Not very suitable.

Socrates . However, my friend, are we attacking oratory too sharply? It would perhaps object to us: “What nonsense you are talking about, you are strange people! I do not force anyone who does not know the truth to learn to speak, on the contrary, if no advice means anything, then only he who has the truth will then come to me. I claim this: even one who knows the truth will not find a means beyond me to skillfully convince. ”

Fedr . Wouldn’t it be right to say so?

Socrates . I agree if the evidence that is appropriate for the occasion confirms that it is art. It seems to me that I hear how some of them come here and testify that the eloquence is not art, but a skill that is far from it. The true art of speech, said finally, cannot be achieved without knowing the truth, and indeed it will never be possible.

Fedr . This evidence is necessary, Socrates. Bring them here and interrogate: what and how do they claim?

Socrates . Come here, noble creatures, and convince Fedor, the father of beautiful children, that if he is not sophisticated enough in philosophy, he will never be able to talk about anything. Let Fedr answer you.

Fedr . Ask.

Socrates . Is the art of eloquence not even the ability to captivate souls with words, not only in courts and other public gatherings, but also in private life? Whether it is a matter of trifles or major matters, it is all the same, and, whether applied correctly – to important matters or to minor ones – it does not become more or less valuable. Or have you heard about it wrong?

Fedr . I swear by Zeus, not quite so. They speak and pi jest skillfully, above all, for litigation, speak skillfully and in the national assembly. And I have never heard of more.

Socrates . So you only heard about the instructions in eloquence that Nestor and Odysseus wrote in Ilion to take your leisure, but didn’t you hear about the instructions of Palamedes?

Fedr . Yes, I swear by Zeus, I have not heard of Nestor’s instructions, unless you make some Nestor from Gorgias, and Odysseus from some Frasimach and Theodore.

Socrates . May be. But leave them alone. Tell me, what are the litigants doing in court? Do they argue, or call it something else?

Fedr . No, that’s right.

Socrates . They argue about what is fair and what is unfair?

Fedr . Yes.

Socrates . And whoever does this skillfully, will be able to present the same thing to the same listeners, now fair, then, if he wants, unfair?

Fedr . And what?

Socrates . And in the national assembly, the same thing will seem to citizens sometimes good, and sometimes vice versa.

Fedr . This is true.

Socrates . Do we not know how skillfully the Eleanic Palamede speaks: to his listeners the same thing seems similar and dissimilar, single and plural, resting and rushing.

Fedr . Oh sure.

Socrates . Consequently, the art of dispute is applied not only in court and in the national assembly, but, apparently, it is some kind of a single art – if it is art – it is equally applicable to everything, no matter what; with his help, anyone will be able to liken everything that is possible to everything that is possible, and bring to the clear water of another with his foggy assimilation.

Fedr . How, how do you say?

Socrates . To those who are searching, it is possible, in my opinion, to explain it this way: is it easier to be deceived when there is a big or small difference between things?

Fedr . When small.

Socrates . The transition to the opposite will not be less noticeable if it is done gradually, than if sharply?

Fedr . How else?

Socrates . So, whoever is going to deceive another without deceiving himself, he must thoroughly know the similarity and dissimilarity of everything that exists.

Fedr . It’s necessary.

Socrates . But can one who does not know the truth about any thing distinguish between the similarity of an unknown thing with other things, whether it be small or large?

Fedr . It’s impossible.

Socrates . So, it’s clear: for those who have wrong opinions about the existing and can be deceived, the reason for their misfortune is some kind of similarity between things.

Fedr . Yes, it happens.

Socrates . Could it be that one who always leads away from being to its opposite, is able to skillfully make gradual transitions based on the similarity between things? And will he himself avoid mistakes, since he does not know what this or that thing of the existing ones is?

Fedr . It cannot be in any way.

Socrates . So, my friend, who does not know the truth, but pursues opinions, the art of speech will, apparently, be ridiculous and unskilful.

Fedr . Perhaps so.

Socrates. Do you want to see that in the speech of Lysia, which you brought here, and in those speeches that we gave here the battle, was, in our words, artless and that skillful?

Fedr . With great hunting; otherwise we are now saying something unfoundedly, without sufficient examples.

Socrates . Apparently, it is just a coincidence that both speeches are an example of how a person, although he knows the truth, can, amusing himself in speeches, lure his listeners. I, Fyodor, blame the gods here. Or maybe these harbingers of Muses, singers over our heads, breathed this gift into us – after all, at least I was not at all involved in the art of speech.

Fedr . Let it be as you say, but just explain your idea.

Socrates . Well, read me the beginning of Lysias speech.

Fedr . “You know about my intentions, you have already heard about what I consider useful for you and me, if they come true. I think that the fact that I’m not in love with you will not be an obstacle to my request: the lovers repent later … “

Socrates . Wait a minute. After all, we wanted to indicate in what Lysias makes a mistake and what he does not artfully – is not it?

Fedr . Yes.

Socrates . Is it not clear to everyone that we agree with some of this, but that something revolts us?

Fedr . I seem to catch your thought, but speak more clearly

Socrates . When someone calls iron or silver, do we not think the same thing?

Fedr . Of course, the same thing.

Socrates . And if someone calls justice and good? Does not everyone interpret them in his own way, and do we not disagree here with each other and with ourselves?

Fedr . And very much so.

Socrates . So, we agree on something, but not on something.

Fedr . Yes it is.

Socrates . Why is it easier to deceive us, and where is eloquence more powerful?

Fedr . It can be seen where we wander off the road.

Socrates . So, one who intends to engage in oratory, must first of all make the right separation and catch what is the sign of each of its varieties – one where the majority inevitably wanders, and one where it does not.

Fedr . Its beautiful variety, Socrates, would be comprehended by one who would catch it!

Socrates . Then, I think, in each individual case he should not lose sight of, but, on the contrary, as keenly as possible to feel what kind of family he is talking about.

Fedr . Of course.

Socrates . So what? Will we attribute love to those matters regarding which there is disagreement or not?

Fedr . And what a difference! Otherwise, as it were, in your opinion, you managed to express everything that you just said about her: she is pernicious for both the lover and the one he loves, and on the other hand, she is the greatest good.

Socrates . You are absolutely right. But tell me again that: because of my enthusiastic state, I do not quite remember if I gave a definition of love at the beginning of my speech?

Fedr . I swear by Zeus, yes, and, moreover, amazingly successful.

Socrates . That’s it! How much, according to these words of your words, the nymphs, the daughters of Acheloy, and Pan, the son of Hermes, are more skilled in speech than Lysias, son of Kefal! Either I am mistaken, or Lysy at the beginning of his love speech forced us to take Eros for one of the manifestations of being – though, such as he himself liked – and on this built his whole speech to the end. Do you want us to read its beginning again?

Fedr . If you like. However, there is not what you are looking for.

Socrates . Read to let me hear him.

Fedr . “You already heard about my intentions and about what I think is useful for you and me if they come true. I think that the fact that I am not in love with you will not be an obstacle to my request: the lovers repent later in their good attitude when their passion passes. ”

Socrates . He apparently does not have what we are looking for. He seeks to ensure that his reasoning does not float from the beginning, but from the end, on his back and back. He begins with what the lover would end his explanation with the pet. Or am I wrong, my dear Fedr, are you?

Fedr . Indeed, Socrates, what he is talking about here, is the conclusion of a speech.

Socrates . But other? Does it not seem that everything in this speech is sketched at random? Is it obvious that precisely what was said in the second place, and not in other statements, should certainly take second place? It seemed to me, like an ignoramus, that this writer courageously expressed everything that crossed his mind. Do you see any need for writers to arrange everything in such a sequence as that of Lysis?

Fedr . You are too amiable if you think that I am able to analyze all the features of his composition so carefully.

Socrates . But at least this is what you could say: all speech should be composed like a living being – it should have a body with its head and legs, and the trunk and limbs should fit together and fit the whole.

Fedr . How else?

Socrates . So consider whether this is the case with your friend’s speech or otherwise. You will find that it is no different from the inscription that is said to have been on the tomb of the Phrygian Midas.

Fedr . And what is this inscription and what is special about it?

Socrates . This is what it is:

I am a brass girl, resting on the tomb of Midas.

As long as the water flows and the tree blossoms lushly,

I will abide on this multi-tear grave,

Passing by the things that Midas is buried here.

You, I think, noticed that it doesn’t matter which verse to read first, which last.

Fedr . Are you making fun of our speech, Socrates?

Socrates . So let’s leave it so as not to anger you, although, in my opinion, there are many examples in it that would be useful to pay attention to, but trying to imitate them is not really worth it. Let’s move on to other speeches. It seemed to me that there was something in them that should be looked at by those who want to explore eloquence.

Fedr . What do you mean?

Socrates . These two speeches were opposite to each other. One argued that you should please a lover, the other – that a lover.

Fedr . And it was very strongly affirmed.

Socrates . I thought you would say “vehemently” —that would be true, which is exactly what I was striving for: after all, we argued that love is a kind of frenzy. Is not it?

Fedr . Yes.

Socrates . And there are two kinds of fury: one is the result of human diseases, the other is a divine deviation from what is usually accepted.

Fedr . Of course it is.

Socrates . We divided the divine fury emanating from the four gods into four parts: we raised inspirational divination to Apollo, initiation into the sacraments to Dionysus, creative fury to Muses, the fourth part to Aphrodite and Eros, and claimed that the love fury of all is better . I don’t know how we portrayed a love state: maybe we touched something true, and maybe we turned aside, but, adding not so unconvincing reasoning, we with due reverence glorified my and yours in the fairy tale, Fedr, with Bishop Eros, the patron saint of handsome young men.

Fedr . It was a pleasure to listen to me!

Socrates . One will try to understand from this – how could our reasoning from censure go to praise.

Fedr . How do you think this is?

Socrates . It seems to me that everything there was essentially just a joke, except for one thing: everything that we accidentally said there was of two kinds, and being able to skillfully apply their capabilities would be grateful for anyone for giving.

Fedr . What are these species?

Socrates . The first is the ability, embracing everything with a common look, to bring to a single idea that which is scattered everywhere, in order to define everyone, to make the subject of teaching clear. This is what we just did when we talked about Eros: first we determined what he was, and then, whether it was good or bad, they began to reason; therefore, our reasoning came out clear and did not contradict itself.

Fedr . What do you call another species, Socrates?

Socrates. The second type is, on the contrary, the ability to divide everything into species, into natural components, while trying not to split any of them, as is the case with bad chefs: for example, in both our recent speeches we attributed the unreasonable part of the soul to which then one general view. Just as there are two parts of the same name in a single human body by nature, only with the designation “left” or “right,” this is also the case with the state of insanity, which both of our speeches knew when they constituted a single form in us, but one speech singled out a part facing him to the left, and did not stop at this division until she found there a certain so-called left love, which she quite rightly condemned; our other speech leads us to the right side of fury of the same name as the first, and there goes some kind of divine love, which is preferred,

Fedr . You speak supremely true.

Socrates . I, Fedr, and myself a fan of such distinction and generalization – this helps me reason and think. And if I notice in another the natural ability to capture the single and the plural, I chase

Following him on the heels, like a god.

Whether or not I am addressing correctly to those who can do this, God knows, but I still call them dialectics mi. But tell me, what are the names of those who studied with you and Lysias? Or is it just that art of speech, using which Frasimach and others themselves became wise in their speeches, and make those who only wish to bring gifts to them like kings?

Fedr . True, they are royal people, but ignorant of what you ask. But it seems to me that you correctly called this species dialectical; but the one with regard to eloquence, in my opinion, is still slipping away from us.

Socrates . As you say? Could there be something beautiful beyond dialectics, which also refers to art? In any case, neither me nor you should neglect this, and we need to talk about what it is – I mean eloquence.

Fedr . This is said a lot, Socrates, in books written about the art of speech.

Socrates . Good thing you recalled. In my opinion, in the first place, at the beginning of the speech, there should be an introduction. After all, do you consider this, aren’t you, the subtleties of art?

Fedr . Yes.

Socrates . In second place – presentation and evidence, in third place – evidence, in fourth – plausible conclusions. And the real Daedalus of speeches, one that comes from Byzantium, also calls confirmation and additional confirmation.

Fedr . Are you talking about the glorious Theodore?

Socrates. Of course. And yet, he argues, a rebuttal and an additional rebuttal must be applied both to the prosecution and to the defense. And the most beautiful Elena from Paros, do not we take a prominent place? He was the first to invent a side explanation and indirect praise. They say that in order to make it easier to remember, he outlined his indirect censure in verse – such a master! Tisy and Gorgy, let them sleep peacefully: they had the impression that instead of truth they should more read credibility; by the power of their words, they make the small seem big, and the big seem small, they represent the new as ancient, and the old as new, for any reason they have ready-made compressed or infinitely long speeches. Having heard about this from me once, Prodik laughed and said that he had only found one; what is the art of speech: they should be neither long nor short, but in moderation. Fedr. You’re smarter than everyone

Socrates . But we will not talk about Hippie? I think that one of his eyes would be our guest from Elea.

Fedr . Maybe.

Socrates . And what can we say about the Ambassador’s word-making – about his doubling, sayings to figurative expressions, about all these words of Lycinius, presented to Paul for euphony?

Fedr .

Socrates . Some kind of teaching on the correctness of speech, my child, and many more good things. But, in my plaintive, groaning speeches about old age and need, everyone overcame, in my opinion, the art and power of the Chalkedonian. He knows how to cause the anger of the crowd, and again with his spells to tame the angry – so he assures. That’s why he is so strong when it is necessary to slander or refute slander. As for the final part of the speeches, then everyone seems to have one opinion, only some call it concise repetition, while others call it differently.

Fedr . You say that in the end you need to remind the listeners in general terms of everything said?

Socrates . Yes, I think so; but can you add something else about the art of eloquence?

Fedr . Little things, you should not talk about them.

Socrates . Leave aside the little things. It’s better to consider what in the bright light of day: how and when does eloquence affect its art?

Fedr . It acts very strongly, Socrates, especially in crowded gatherings.

Socrates . Yes it is. But, my friend, take a look and say, do not you, like me, think that the whole basis of this fabric has spread out?

Fedr . Explain how it is.

Socrates . Tell me, if someone turns to your friend Eriksimach or his father Akumen and says: “I can somehow influence the human body so that it can become hot or cold at my discretion, and if I choose, I I can cause vomiting or diarrhea and much more in the same way. Since I know how to do this, I pretend to be a doctor, and I can make a doctor and someone else to whom I will transfer this skill. ” What do you think Ericksimach or Akumen would say to him?

Fedr . Nothing, they would only ask if he knows in addition to whom, when and to what extent each of his means should be applied?

Socrates . And if he said: “Not at all, but I believe that my student will be able to do what you ask.”

Fedr . They would say, I think, that this man is out of his mind: he read some of the books or accidentally fell into the hands of medicine, and now he imagines himself to be a doctor, meaning nothing in this matter.

Socrates . And if someone, in turn, turned to Sophocles and Euripides and said that he could write long speeches about trifles, and about something great, on the contrary, they would be very concise and, at their own will, make them pitiful, then, on the contrary, frightening , formidable and so on, and also that he is sure that, by teaching all this, he will pass on to others the ability to create tragedies?

Fedr . And Sophocles and Euripides, I think, Socrates, would ridicule the one who believes that tragedy is not a combination of such speeches, but connected and constituting a single whole.

Socrates. But I think they would not have rudely scolded him. So, a music connoisseur when meeting a person who considers himself a connoisseur of harmony just because he knows how to tune the string higher or lower, will not say rudely: “Poor thing, you must have gone crazy,” but on the contrary, he will say very softly, as befits a person involved in music: “Dear, of course, this is also necessary for someone who is going to do harmony, but this does not exclude that a person in your position doesn’t understand harmony at all: you have the necessary preliminary information on harmony, but you don’t know harmony itself. ”

Fedr . That’s right.

Socrates . So, Sophocles would also say to someone who would want to show off before them that this is just a stupa for tragedy, and not tragic art; and Akumen would say that there are only approaches to healing, and not art itself.

Fedr . Of course.

Socrates. And what, in our opinion, would the sweet-talking Adrast, or even Pericles, have done if they had heard about the wonderful tricks we just mentioned – about brevity, about the figurative way of expression, and so on, which, as we said, should be seen in bright light days? Were they not annoyed, like you and I, and would not have escaped from them, due to uncouthness, an ugly word in relation to those who write all this and teach this under the guise of the art of eloquence. Or, perhaps, they are smarter than us, if only they would have reproached us, saying: “There is nothing to be angry, Fedr and Socrates, you should be condescending if people who are not able to reason are not able to determine what is the art of eloquence. Because of this, they, possessing only the necessary preliminary information, believe that they have invented oratory and, when they teach it to others, are sure that they convey to them the perfect art of eloquence. And to talk about each subject convincingly and combine everything into one whole, this, in their opinion, is not difficult, and students themselves must achieve this in their speeches. “

Fedr . Indeed, Socrates, this is exactly the art that these people teach under the guise of eloquence and about which they write. I think you said the right thing. But how and where can one learn the art of genuine and convincing eloquence?

Socrates . With this opportunity, Fedr, as well as with the opportunity to become a perfect fighter, is probably — and perhaps necessary — the same as with everything else: if you have the natural inclinations of a speaker, you will become an outstanding speaker, putting knowledge and exercises to it. In which of these you have a flaw, that will be your weak point. How much art is here is clear, in my opinion, from our consideration, but this will not show up on the path that Lysias and Thrasimachus follow.

Fedr . And on what?

Socrates . Apparently, my friend, it is no coincidence that Pericles surpassed everyone in eloquence.

Fedr . Why so?

Socrates . No matter how great the great arts are, all of them, in addition, need a thorough study of the nature of high things. From here, apparently, somehow flows a high way of thinking and perfection in everything. This is what Pericles possesses besides his natural giftedness. Having come close to Anaxagoras, a man, in my opinion, of just such a warehouse, Pericles was filled with the knowledge of the sublime and comprehended the nature of mind and thinking, about which Anaxagoras often spoke; from here Pericles also attracted the benefit of the art of eloquence.

Fedr . How do you understand that?

Socrates . Perhaps, in the art of healing the same techniques are used as in the art of eloquence.

Fedr . How so?

Socrates . And here and there you need to understand nature, in one case – the body, in another – the soul, if you intend to use not skill and experience, but art, using drugs and nutrition in the first case to restore health and strength, and in the second – conversations and proper activities to instill the desired persuasive skill and virtue.

Fedr . Probably it is, Socrates.

Socrates . Do you think that you can adequately comprehend the nature of the soul without comprehending the nature of the whole?

Fedr . If Asklepiad Hippocrates must believe in something, then even the nature of the body cannot be comprehended in any other way.

Socrates . He says it very well, my friend. However, in addition to Hippocrates, one must also turn to reason and see if he agrees with Hippocrates.

Fedr . I suppose.

Socrates . So, look what Hippocrates says about nature, and what is true mind. Shouldn’t you think so about the nature of any thing: first of all, is this a simple thing – something in which we ourselves would like to become skillful and know how to do others, or is it multi-species; then, if this is a simple thing, it is necessary to consider its abilities: what and how can it affect by nature or, conversely, what can affect it and how? If there are many of its species, then you need to count them and look at the properties of each (as well as in the case when it is one): what and how each species can affect by its nature and what and how can affect it.

Fedr . Perhaps this is so, Socrates.

Socrates . Otherwise, consideration would be like a blind man wandering. And the one who is involved in art, can not be likened to a blind or deaf. It is clear that, who, according to the rules of art, instructs another in the composition of speeches, he will exactly show the essence of the nature of what the speech is addressed to – and that will be the soul.

Fedr . Of course. And what?

Socrates . And all his efforts are aimed at this – after all, it is he who tries to convince the soul. Is not it?

Fedr . Yes.

Socrates . This means that it is clear that Frasimach, or someone else, if he seriously teaches oratory, will first of all carefully write about the soul and clearly show whether it is uniform and uniform in nature or whether it has many kinds, corresponding to body composition. This is what we call showing nature [of a thing].

Fedr . That’s right.

Socrates . Secondly, he will indicate what and how the soul by its nature affects and what and how it affects it.

Fedr . And then?

Socrates . Thirdly, having harmoniously arranged the types of speech and soul and their state, he will analyze all the reasons, establish the correspondence of each [type of speech] to each [type of soul] and teach which soul which speeches and for what reason will certainly convince and which not.

Fedr . That would be very good indeed.

Socrates . Really, my friend, if you explain or state otherwise, then neither this nor ever will be possible to set forth either verbally or in writing in accordance with the rules of art. And those whom you listened to, these current compilers of the guidelines for the art of speech, they are crooks and only hide that they know the human soul perfectly. So until they begin to speak and write in this particular way, we will not believe them that their manuals are written according to the rules of art.

Fedr . Which way do you mean?

Socrates . It is not easy to find the exact expressions here, but I want to indicate how to write, so that, as much as possible, it should be done according to the rules of art.

Fedr . So point it out.

Socrates. Since the power of speech lies in influencing the soul, the one who is going to become an orator needs to know how many kinds the soul has: there are so many and so many, they are such and such, so listeners are such and such something. When it is properly disassembled, then it is established that there are so many and so many kinds of speeches, and each of them is such and such. It is easy to convince such and such listeners of such and such speeches for such and such reasons, and such and that’s why and so are difficult to convince. He who has thought enough of all this, then observes how it is implemented and applied in practice, and he must be able to acutely perceive and follow, otherwise he will not add anything to what he heard earlier, studying eloquence. When will he be able to determine what speeches which person will convince himself, then, when meeting with such a person, he will be able to recognize him and realize that this is precisely the person and nature that was previously discussed. Now she actually appeared before him, and so it is necessary to apply such and such speeches to her in order to convince her of that. Having realized all this, he should take into account the time when it is more convenient for him to speak, and when to abstain: all the types of speeches he studied are concise speech, or compassionate, or exciting, he should apply on time and by the way: only then, and not before, his art will be developed beautifully and perfectly. If, however, making a speech, composing or teaching, he will miss at least some of this, and meanwhile he will claim that he adheres to the rules of art, he will be right who does not believe him. “Well, Fedor and Socrates,” such a writer would say, – is that your opinion? But is it really impossible to understand otherwise what is called the art of eloquence? ”

Fedr . It is impossible otherwise, Socrates, although this is apparently not a small matter.

Socrates . You’re right. That is why it is necessary, turning each speech this way, this way, to see if there is any easier and shorter way to the art of eloquence, so as not to go in vain on a long and thorny way, when you can choose a short and even one. If you, who listened to Lysia and others, can provide us with some help, then try to recall and state what you heard.

Fedr . One could try, but now I’m not located.

Socrates . Do you want me to tell you one thing that I heard from those involved in this matter?

Fedr . What exactly?

Socrates . There is a saying, Fedor, that it is sometimes worth repeating the words of the wolf.

Fedr . So you do it.

Socrates. So, they argue that in this case it is not at all necessary to be carried so high and to engage in lengthy discussions. In their opinion, – and as we said at the beginning of this discussion, – it is completely unnecessary for someone who is going to become a good speaker to have a true idea of ​​fair and good deeds or people who are fair and dear in nature or in education. In the courts, nobody decisively decides – about the matter of truth, only persuasiveness is important. And it consists in verisimilitude, on which one who wants to deliver a skillful speech should focus his attention. Sometimes in a defensive and accusatory speech one should even keep silent about what actually happened, if this is implausible, and speak only about the implausible: the speaker should do his best to pursue the credibility, often saying goodbye to the truth.

Fedr . You, Socrates, just touched what people say, posing as experts in eloquence. I recall that you and I previously touched on this in passing, but this is very important for everyone involved in such a thing.

Socrates . But you carefully studied Tysias himself, so let Tysy tell us whether he agrees with the majority as to what is credibility.

Fedr . How can he disagree?

Socrates . This is the case that Tisius apparently cleverly invented and skillfully described: if a weak, but brave man beats a strong, but cowardly, takes his cloak or something else, then when they are summoned to court, not one of them can to tell the truth: a coward should not admit that the ego beat one man who turned out to be a brave man. The same must be proved that they met face to face. pushing for such an argument: “How could I, like this, attack such a one?” Strong does not admit his cowardice, but will try to lie and thereby possibly give his opponent an excuse to convict him. And in other cases there are skillful speeches in the same way. Isn’t that so, Fedr?

Fedr . So what?

Socrates . Oh, and cleverly concealed art was invented by Tisy or whoever else was there and no matter what he was called! But, my friend, whether we should tell him or not …

Fedr . What?

Socrates. And here’s what: “We, Tisius, long before your appearance said, it happened that most people seem plausible what is like the truth. And now we have analyzed different cases of similarity and have shown that the one who knows the truth is best able to find it everywhere. So, if you say something new about the art of eloquence, we will listen, if not, we will remain convinced that our study led us to: who does not take into account the natural qualities of their future listeners, who fail to distinguish between the existing and to embrace all that is single with one idea, he will never master the art of eloquence as much as possible for man. It is impossible to achieve this without effort, and a sensible person will undertake such work not in order to speak and deal with people, but in order to in order to be able to say what is pleasing to the gods and to the best of his ability to do everything so that they would like it. After all, those who are wiser than you and me, Tisiy, argue that a person with a mind should take care of how to please not his comrades in slavery – except by the way, but their good masters, descendants of good parents. Therefore, if the path is long, do not be surprised: for the sake of a great goal, you must go it, and not at all as you imagine. It will come true, the saying goes, if anyone wishes, and it will be the most beautiful fruit of those efforts. ” Therefore, if the path is long, do not be surprised: for the sake of a great goal, you must go it, and not at all as you imagine. It will come true, the saying goes, if anyone wishes, and it will be the most beautiful fruit of those efforts. ” Therefore, if the path is long, do not be surprised: for the sake of a great goal, you must go it, and not at all as you imagine. It will come true, the saying goes, if anyone wishes, and it will be the most beautiful fruit of those efforts. ”

Fedr . Well, in my opinion, it is said Socrates, if only someone can do it.

Socrates . But after all, if you have to endure something, taking up a wonderful thing, it will be fine too.

Fedr . Of course.

Socrates . Well, it’s enough to talk about skillful and non-articulation of speeches!

Fedr . Perhaps.

Socrates . It remains to figure out whether it is appropriate to record speeches or not, what is good and what is not good. Is not it?

Fedr . Yes.

Socrates . Regarding speeches, do you know how to best please God with deed or word?

Fedr . No and you?

Socrates . I can only convey what our ancestors heard about it, they somehow knew if this was true. If we ourselves could find out before that, would we really care about human assumptions?

Fedr . Funny question! But say what you say you heard.

Socrates. So, I heard that near the Egyptian Navkratis one of the ancient gods there was born, to whom a bird called the ibis is dedicated. And the name of the deity itself was Teutus. He was the first to invent number, counting, geometry, astronomy, in addition to the game of checkers and dice, as well as writing. The king over all of Egypt was then Tamus, who ruled in the great city of the upper region, which the Greeks called the Egyptian Thebes, and his god – Ammon. Having come to the king, Teutus showed his skills and said that they should be transferred to the rest of the Egyptians. The king asked what benefit each of them. Teutus began to explain, and the king, depending on whether Teutus said, in his opinion, good or not, condemned something, and praised something. Regarding each art, Tamus is said to have expressed Teuta a lot of good and bad things, but it would have been too long to tell. When the turn came to writing, Teutus said: “This science, the king, will make the Egyptians more wise and memorable, since a means has been found for memory and wisdom.” The tsar said: “The most skillful Teutus, one is able to generate objects of art, and the other to judge what proportion of harm or benefit in them is for those who use them. And now, you, the father of writing, out of love for them, gave them the exact opposite meaning. They instill forgetfulness into the souls of those who have learned them, since the memory will be devoid of exercise: they will remember from the outside, trusting the letter, by extraneous signs, and not from the inside, by themselves. Therefore, you have found a means not for memory, but for remembrance. You give your students imaginary, not true wisdom. They will know a lot from you firsthand, without training, and they will seem knowledgeable, remaining in the majority not religious. difficult people to communicate; they will become imaginary instead of the wise. ”

Fedr . You, Socrates, easily compose Egyptian legends and whatever you like.

Socrates . The priests of Zeus Dodonsky told us that the words of the oak were the first divination. The people of those times – after all, they were not as smart as you, the current ones – it was enough, in their simplicity, to listen to the oak or rock, if only they would tell the truth. And with you, it is probably important who it says and where it comes from, because you are not only looking at whether everything is really so or otherwise.

Fedr . You reproached me correctly, but with the letter we can see that it is, as the Theban says.

Socrates . So, he who hopes to capture his art in letters and who, in turn, draws it from letters, because it seems to be reliably and firmly preserved there for the future, is both full of innocence and, in fact, do not know Ammon’s prophecy, since they put recorded speech higher than a reminder from a person who knows what is recorded.

Fedr . This is very true.

Socrates . In this, Fedr is a bad feature of writing, which is truly similar to painting: its creatures stand as living ones, and ask them – they are majestic and proudly silent. The same thing with writings: you think that they speak as rational creatures, but if someone asks about something of what they say, wanting to learn it, they always answer the same thing. Every work written once is in circulation everywhere – about people who understand it, and equally to those who are not at all fit to read it, and it does not know with whom it should speak and with whom it does not. If he is neglected or criticized unfairly, he needs the help of his father, but he himself is not able to defend himself or help himself.

Fedr . And you say that very true.

Socrates . Well, can we not take a look at how another composition arises, the brother of the first, and how much is by its nature better and more powerful?

Fedr . What kind of composition is this and how do you think it arises?

Socrates . This is the composition that, as knowledge is acquired, is written in the soul of the student; it is able to protect itself and at the same time knows how to talk with whom it should, knows how and keep silent.

Fedr . Are you talking about the lively and animated speech of a knowledgeable person, the reflection of which can rightly be called written speech?

Socrates . That’s right. Tell me this: is there any reasonable farmer who is happy about sowing and wants to get a crop, to seriously cultivate Adonis gardens in the summer for the sake of pleasure for eight days to enjoy good seedlings? If he does this sometimes, it’s just for fun, for the sake of a holiday. But he sows seriously, where appropriate, using agricultural art, and is pleased when his sowing ripens for the eighth month.

Fedr . Of course, Socrates, he will do one thing seriously, and the other only as you say.

Socrates . But a person who has knowledge of the just, beautiful, good – what, in our opinion, is he less concerned about the sowing of the farmer?

Fedr . In no case.

Socrates . This means that he will not seriously write in ink on water, sowing with the help of a reed stick essays that are not able to help himself with a word and properly teach the truth.

Fedr . That would be unbelievable.

Socrates . Of course. But it is likely that for the sake of fun he will sow gardens of writing and begin to write; because when he writes, he accumulates a supply of memories for himself at a time when old age will come – the age of oblivion, and for anyone who follows in his wake; and he will rejoice at the sight of tender shoots. Meanwhile, while other people indulge in other entertainments, reveling in feasts and similar entertainments, he will instead probably spend time in those entertainments of which I speak.

Fedr . The fun that you are talking about, Socrates, is beautiful in comparison with those low entertainments: after all, it is available only to those who can, amusing themselves with the composition, narrate about justice and about everything that you mentioned.

Socrates . This is so, dear Fedr, but, in my opinion, such studies will become even better if you use the art of dialectics: having taken a suitable soul, such a person “knows how to plant and sow in it speeches that can help both himself and the sower because they are not barren, they have a seed that will give birth to new speeches in the souls of other people, capable of making this seed forever immortal, and its possessor happy as long as a person can be.

Fedr . What you are saying now is even better.

Socrates . Now, Fedor, since we agree with this, we can already judge that …

Fedr . About what?

Socrates . Yes, about what we wanted to consider and what led us to what was just said: we need to consider the reproach made by us to Lysia for writing speeches, and the speeches themselves — which of them are written expertly and which are not. And what corresponds to the rules of art and what is not, as it seems to me, has already been sufficiently clarified.

Fedr . Yes, it seems, but remind me how.

Socrates . First of all, you need to know the truth about any thing that you speak or write about; to be able to determine everything accordingly with this truth, and having given a definition, to know how to further subdivide this into species, up to the point that it cannot be divided. The nature of the soul must be considered in the same way, looking for the type of speech that corresponds to each natural warehouse, and thus build and organize your speech; a complex soul must be addressed with complex, diverse speeches, and a simple soul with simple ones. Without this, it is impossible to master, as far as nature allows, to master the whole kind of speeches – neither those that are intended to be taught, nor those that are to convince, as all our previous reasoning has shown.

Fedr . Yes, it has become quite obvious.

Socrates . But is it wonderful or shameful to make l and record speeches, and when this is a matter of law, it is reprehensible, and when it is not, has it not clarified what was said a little earlier?

Fedr . What was said?

Socrates . If Lysy or someone else has ever written or will write for individuals or for society an essay on the civilian system and believes that everything is clear and justified there, such a writer deserves reprimand, anyway, someone will say it or not . Whether in a dream or in reality, to be ignorant of justice and injustice, evil and good – this indeed cannot but cause censure, even if the crowd extolled such a person.

Fedr . Of course it cannot.

Socrates. Who believes that in a speech written on any topic, there will inevitably be a lot of entertaining and that no speech has ever been written or made, whether in verses or not, which would deserve a serious attitude (after all, speeches are made like rhapsody tales, then there is no research and teaching, which is intended to convince; in essence, the rhapsody is known by heart to the best that they have), and so, such a person finds that only in edifying speeches delivered for the sake of the teachings and truly drawn in the soul, in speeches about justice, kra Saute and good is clarity and perfection, worth the effort. He will say about such speeches that they are like his sons, first of all about the one that he invented himself, then about her descendants and brothers, who deservedly arose in the souls of other people. And with the rest of the compositions he will say goodbye. Here is that man, Fedr,

Fedr . I really want the same and pray about it.

Socrates . So it’s enough for us to have some fun talking about speech. And you go and tell Lysia that you and I, going down to the source of the nymphs and in the sanctuary of Muses, heard the voices there that instructed us to tell Lysia and to everyone else who composed the speeches, and to Homer and to everyone else who composed verses for singing. and not for singing, and thirdly, and to Solon and anyone who wrote essays regarding the civil structure, in the form of speeches and called these speeches laws: if such a person composed his works, knowing what the truth is, and can protect them when someone begins to check them and if he himself is able to verbally indicate l the weaknesses of what he wrote, such a person should not be called according to his writings, but for the purpose to which his efforts were directed.

Fedr . What do you suggest calling him?

Socrates . The name of the sage, Fedr, in my opinion, is too loud for him and should only be to God. A lover of wisdom – a philosopher or something like that – that’s what suits him better and sounds more alright.

Fedr . Yes, it is very suitable.

Socrates . And that means that one who does not possess something more valuable than what he composed or wrote, who for a long time turned his work around, now and then, gluing together its parts, then destroying them, you will rightly call either a poet or compiler of speeches or laws?

Fedr . Of course.

Socrates . This is you and tell your friend.

Fedr . And you? What will you do? You can’t get around your friend, either.

Socrates . Which one?

Fedr . The handsome Isocrates. What will you announce to him, Socrates? What do we call him?

Socrates . Isocrates is still young, Fedr, but I want to say what I foresee for him.

Fedr . What?

Socrates . It seems to me that in his natural inclinations he is higher than Lysias with his speeches, and in his spiritual disposition he is nobler. Therefore, it will not be surprising if, having matured, in his speeches – so far he is only trying his hand at them – he will surpass everyone who has ever dealt with them, more than he now surpasses all young men. In addition, if he is not satisfied with this, some kind of divine impulse will carry him to even more. In the mind of this man, my friend, nature has a kind of love for wisdom. That’s what I declare in the name of the local gods to my beloved Isocrates, and you declare what has been said, Lysias, since he is your favorite.

Fedr . It will be so. But let’s go, the heat has already subsided.

Socrates . Shouldn’t you pray before you leave?

Fedr . Of course it is.

Socrates . Dear Pan and other gods here, let me become inwardly beautiful! And what I have from the outside, let it be friendly to what is inside me. Let me consider the wise one to be rich, and let me have as much pile of gold as I can carry or take away to anyone but a reasonable person. Should I ask for anything else, Fedr? For me, such a prayer is enough.

Fedr . Please join me in the same prayer. After all, friends have everything in common.

Socrates . Let’s go to.

%d bloggers like this: